Render a zoomed crop of a notebook page region using page-unit coordinates, with optional scale and tape visibility, to inspect fine details.
Zoomed crop of a page. Coordinates are page units (A4 page = 1091 x 1543).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| h | Yes | ||
| w | Yes | ||
| x | Yes | ||
| y | Yes | ||
| page | Yes | ||
| path | Yes | ||
| scale | No | ||
| reveal_tapes | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it only partially discharges it. The coordinate-unit convention (page units, A4 = 1091 x 1543) is genuinely valuable context, but the description says nothing about output format, what scale does, what reveal_tapes exposes, or whether path must reference an existing PDF.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the detail an agent most needs before computing coordinates. No filler, though the terseness shades into under-specification rather than true efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and 8 undocumented parameters, the description leaves too much unresolved for an agent to call this confidently — particularly around scale semantics, the reveal_tapes flag, and what the call returns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies units for x/y/w/h but leaves path, page, scale, and especially reveal_tapes entirely unexplained — over half the surface remains opaque.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
"Zoomed crop of a page" gives a specific verb (crop/render) and resource, and the word "zoomed" distinguishes it from the full-page sibling render_page without naming it. It falls short of a 5 because the sibling is never mentioned and the output form (image vs. file) is left implicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for examining a small area of a page rather than the whole page, since render_page exists as a sibling. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.